Geert Wilders, the nationalist candidate for prime minister of the Netherlands, lost that countrys election last week. This has brought comfort to those who opposed him and his views on immigration and immigrants. It is odd that they should be comforted.
A decade ago, it would have been difficult to imagine that someone of Wilderss views would have won any seats in parliament. The fact that his party is now the second-largest in the Netherlands, rather than an irrelevancy, should be a mark of how greatly both the Netherlands and Euro-American civilization have changed and an indication that this change is not temporary.
Indeed, the second-place showing of the nationalists in the Netherlands is accompanied by an interesting phenomenon. The center-right has shifted a number of its positions toward the nationalists. As we approach the French and German elections, a similar process is under way. While the right may lose elections, its positions are being adopted, at least in part, by centrist parties.
Wilders views are coarser than most, to be sure. He called Moroccans pigs and advocated closing mosques in the Netherlands. But more alarming is the inability of his enemies to grasp why Wilders has risen, and their tendency to dismiss his followers as simply racists. This comforts his critics. They feel morally superior. But paradoxically they are strengthening both Wilders and his allies in Europe and the United States.
I have written before onthe intimate connection between the right to national self-determination and liberal democracy. The right to nationalself-determinationis meaningless without the existence of a nation. And a nation is impossible to imagine without an identity. There is something that makes the Dutch different from Poles, and both different from Egyptians. Nationalism assumes distinctions.
Barron's senior editor Jack Hough and WSJ's Shelby Holliday discuss the latest issue of Barron's. Topics include finding alternatives to a border tax. Also, how to invest in water. Plus, why Canada's MBA programs are getting a Trump Bump.
For Europe, Nazi Germany and the wars of the 20th century were seen as manifestations of nationalism. Without nationalism or more precisely the obsession with national identity these things would not have happened. One result from this was the European Union, which tried bafflingly to acknowledge the persistence and importance of the nation-state while also trying to reduce the nation-states power and significance. The European Union has never abolished the differences between nations and their interests, because it couldnt.
Adolf Hitler taught us an important lesson. The balance between loving ones own and despising the stranger is less obvious than we would like to think. Nationalism can become monstrous. But so can internationalism, as Josef Stalin, Hitlers Russian soul mate, demonstrated. All things must be taken in moderation, but the need for moderation doesnt abolish the need to be someone in a vast world filled with others.
Nationalism was the centerpiece of the rise of liberal democraciesbecause liberal democracy was built around the liberation of nations. Liberals in Europe and America did not deny that, but they simply could not grasp that a nation cannot exist unless its people feel a common bond that makes them distinct. The claim was that it was legitimate to have a nation, but not legitimate to love it inordinately, to love it more than other nations, to value the things that made it different, and above all, to insist that the differences be preserved, not diluted.
Nationalism is not based on minor idiosyncrasies of food and holidays. It is the deep structure of the human soul, something acquired from mothers, families, religious leaders, teachers. It is the thing that you are before you even understand that there are others. It tells you about the nature of the world, the meaning of justice, the deities we bow to and the obligations we have to each other. Nationalism is not all we are, but it is the root of what we are.
If I say that I am an American, then I have said something of enormous importance. I am American and not Japanese or Dutch. I can admire these nationalities and have friends among them, but I am not one of them, and they are not one of us. I owe obligations to America and Americans that I do not owe to others, and others owe the same to their nations. It is easy to declare yourself a citizen of the world. It is much harder to be one. Citizenship requires a land, a community, and the distinctions that are so precious in human life.
The problems associated with immigration must always be borne in mind. The United States was built from immigrants, beginning with the English at Jamestown. America celebrated immigrants, but three things were demanded from them, two laid down by Thomas Jefferson. First, they were expected to learn English, the common tongue. Second, they were expected to understand the civic order and be loyal to it. The third element was not Jeffersons. It was that immigrants had to find economic opportunity. Immigration only works when this opportunity exists. Without that, the immigrants remain the huddled masses. Immigrants dont want to go where no economic opportunities exist, and welcoming immigrants heedless of the economic consequences leaves both immigrants and the class they will compete with desperate and bitter.
In some countries, such as the United States,immigration and nationalism are intimately connected. Since economic opportunity requires speaking English, immigrants must learn English and their children learn loyalty to the regime. It is an old story in the U.S. But when there is no opportunity as in many European countries currently assimilation is impossible. And when the immigrant chooses not to integrate, something else happens. The immigrant is here not to share the values of the country but as a matter of convenience. He requires toleration as a human, but he does not reciprocate because he has chosen to be a guest and not a citizen in the full sense of the term.
For the well-to-do, this is a drama acted out of sight. The affluent do not live with poor immigrants, and if they know them at all, it is as servants. The well-off can afford a generous immigration system because they do not pay the price. The poor, who live in neighborhoods where immigrants live, experience economic, linguistic, and political dislocation associated with immigration, because it is the national values they were brought up with that are being battled over. It is not simply jobs at stakes. It is also their own identities as Dutchmen, Americans, or Poles that are at stake. They are who they are, and they battle to resist loss or weakening of this identity.
For the well-to-do, those who resist the immigrants are dismissed in two ways. First, they are the poorer citizens, and therefore lack the sophistication of the wealthy. Second, because they are poor, they are racists, and nationalism is simply a cover for racism.
Thus, nationalism turns into a class struggle. The wealthy are indifferent to it because their identity derives from their wealth, their mobility, and a network of friends that go beyond borders. The poor live where they were born, and their network of friends and beliefs are those that they were born into. In many cases, they have lost their jobs. If they also lose their identity, they have lost everything.
This class struggle is emerging in Euro-American society. It is between the well-to-do, who retain internationalist principles, reinforced by a life lived in the wider world, and the poor. For this latter group, internationalism has brought economic pain and has made pride in who they are and a desire to remain that way a variety of pathology.
The elite, well-to-do, internationalists, technocrats call them what youd like demonize poorer members of society as ignorant and parochial. The poor see the elite as contemptuous of them and abandoning the principles to which they were born, in favor of wealth and the world that the poor cannot access.
This is about far more than money. Money is simply the thing that shields you from the effect of the loss of identity. The affluent have other ways to think of themselves. But the real issue goes back to the founding principles of liberal democracy the right to national self-determination and, therefore, the right to a nation. And that nation is not understood in the EUs anemic notion of the nation, but as a full-blooded assertion of the right to preserve the cultural foundations of nationhood in the fullest sense.
In other words, the nationalism issue has become a football in a growing class struggle between those who praise tolerance but do not face the pain of being tolerant, and those who see tolerance as the abandonment of all they learned as a child. I began by talking about Hitler, whom no reasonable and decent person wants to emulate. Yet, what made Hitler strong was that the elite held his followers in contempt. They had nowhere else to go, and nothing to lose. Having lost much in World War I and the Depression, they had nothing left but pride in being German. And the scorn in which they were held turned nationalism into a monstrosity.
Scorn and contempt are even more powerful a force than poverty. Liberals are sensitive to the scorn directed at immigrants, but rarely to those who must deal with immigration not as a means of moral self-satisfaction, but in daily life. This is not about immigration or free trade. It is about the nation, first loves, and the foundations of liberalism.
George Friedman is the founder and chairman ofGeopolitical Futures LLC, an online publication that explains and forecasts the course of global events. Republished with permission.
See more here:
Opinion: The nationalist wave in the US and Europe that liberals still don't get - MarketWatch